The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial
Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard directions to the jury on the drawing of inferences from a defendant’s silence in order to avoid any risk of injustice.
As to the model directions, Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘The Court was reluctant to countenance the view that direction of a jury called for the mouthing of a number of mandatory formulae, and departure by the trial judge from a prescribed form of words would by no means always justify the upsetting of a jury’s verdict. However, standard directions were devised to serve the ends of justice and the Court must be astute to ensure that these ends were not jeopardised by failure to give directions where they were called for. The drawing of inferences from silence was a particularly sensitive area . .’
Judges:
Lord Bingham CJ
Citations:
Times 10-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 177, [1999] Crim LR 311
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Doldur CACD 7-Dec-1999
A jury cannot convict solely on the basis of an inference, drawn under section 34, from the combination of an accused’s failure to give at interview, an explanation relied upon later at court. Additional evidence could be found not only from the . .
Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.153051
